They had to go out of their way to prevent videos from playing audio in the background. They're objectively gatekeeping basic functionality behind a paywall, independently of whether anyone feels entitled to those features.
Features aren't decided by the effort it takes to create them but rather the value they provide, offset by the revenue they generate.
Background video lowers the value of ads which subsidizes free playback so it makes monetary sense to disable it. It's also a trivial amount of work done once.
> Background video lowers the value of ads which subsidizes free playback so it makes monetary sense to disable it.
On the other hand, video is expensive to serve so the ad revenue per gigabyte should be higher, in addition to getting more hours of listening per user. So it makes monetary sense to enable it.
They're both valid options for making money. So it's fair game to analyze it as a matter of user preference, company preference, and level of rudeness.
> It's the same file being delivered, they don't switch to just audio.
Youtube has separate audio and video streams available on almost everything. I'd be very surprised if it wasted that data, and a quick search suggests it doesn't waste that data.
> Even if they did, the ad revenue without video playback is 0.
Sounds like they're doing something wrong in the sales process.
What's wrong with the sales process? Do you have advertising experience or are you just guessing?
You're vastly underestimating how 10s of billions of dollars in advertising transactions are conducted. It's far more involved than just a "sales process".
I wasn't actually accusing them of doing something wrong, I was saying that as the logical conclusion of your claim. I'm fully confident that they are able to get money for those ad slots. How would an ad slot by youtube be worth 0?
Yes, they are absolutely doing all of this, and it's entirely within their remit to do so because no one is entitled to any of it for free. Why should they offer all of their basic functionality for free if that means they're not making as much money as they could be if they charged for it instead? The only people they owe background audio playback to are those paying for it, and those people are getting it.
What are you going on about? You have nearly a dozen comments where either I'm seriously misunderstanding everyone involved or you're hell-bent on believing that any description of YouTube's business practices must be a complaint that more things aren't free.
E.g.:
> Ancestor: [paraphrased] YouTube makes money by doing extra work to make a free service more painful to use and then charging to remove those annoyances.
> You: [paraphrased] What makes <ancestor> so entitled as to think that you deserve the free service without the annoyances?
> Me: [paraphrased] No, YouTube is definitely intentionally removing features from their free service and offering to add them back if you pay them. That's true whether or not anyone feels entitled to those features.
> You: [paraphrased] Well duh, it's they're right, and why should they offer those features for free in the first place?
It's a brilliant freemium model that still gives everyone access except those who want a bonus luxury.
You'll have to close the gap on why you think it's bad while still acknowledging that they aren't a charity instead of just leaving your point as an exercise for the reader.
So far it's like complaining that Netflix paywalls the "basic functionality" of being able to watch their videos. Or that a game demo only gives you part of a game when you actually want all of it for free.
Yes, companies purposely don't include all desired features in the free tier as an incentive to induce users to upgrade to the paid tier. And features are liable to move between tiers as they fine-tune their monetization strategy.
Background video lowers the value of ads which subsidizes free playback so it makes monetary sense to disable it. It's also a trivial amount of work done once.